*4.2.1 Group A: goats as vehicles for experimentation with abstraction and decorative compositional dynamic*

The goat lends itself to abstraction and decoration with its curved horns and upturned tail—this is especially the case in the use of the goat (or ibex) in the art of Ancient Anatolia. The depiction of goats in Mesopotamian art is often stereotypical, allowing one to assume that sketchbooks were used and artists trained in standard doctrines. In the artefacts of this group, the artists have attempted to depict goats in their most recognisable form (**Figures 5** and **6**). These include full profile; walking, or standing with their horned heads shown from the side; or lying down. Mostly, single animals are shown. Where goats are not shown entirely, they are suggested by parts of their body, such as horns in the goat-head rhyton (**Figure 7**).

**11**

**Figure 7.**

*University, Japan).*

**Figure 6.**

*Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale…*

*A baked clay pot, sporting a goat, from Umma which is dated to the Amorite dynasty of the nineteenth–*

Although the objects and images shown here have been placed in the category of 'abstraction and decorative composition' because they are particularly striking, some inferences regarding their symbolism can be made. Firstly, these objects may have

*(a) Burnished pottery rhyton in the form of a goat's head from Iran (Elam) that is dated to 1000 B.C.E. (b and c) Earthenware goat rhyton dated to between 1000 and 2000 B.C.E. (All housed at the Sankokan* 

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531*

*eighteenth century B.C.E. (housed at the Louvre, Paris: [17]).*

**Figure 5.** *Elamite mountain goat from Susa, 3100–2900 B.C.E. (housed in the Louvre, Paris).*

*Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531*

### **Figure 6.**

*Goats (Capra) - From Ancient to Modern*

*compositional dynamic*

rhyton (**Figure 7**).

ous artefacts.

either provided references to relevant artefacts or showed photographs or tracings of artefacts. Where these items were considered important but the images were unclear, higher quality images were sought. Museum collections that have been

This was followed by a classification and comparison of the images of the vari-

To provide structure to the comparison, images that depict a similar theme or 'motif' were grouped. To this effect, a method was sought to provide some meaning to a classification. Whereas some scholars have argued that the depiction of animals in Mesopotamian art illustrates the start of religion, others have argued that animals provide merely a symbolic representation of the world as the artist saw it. However, it must be agreed that there must be multiple levels of meaning. To this end, the system provided by Root [20] to classify the use of animals in art is used here. An approximate seriation within each group was also undertaken (although it is conceded that the chronology provided by scholars commenting on these pieces is assumed correct, which may not necessarily be the case). The groupings made are discussed below.

*4.2.1 Group A: goats as vehicles for experimentation with abstraction and decorative* 

*Elamite mountain goat from Susa, 3100–2900 B.C.E. (housed in the Louvre, Paris).*

The goat lends itself to abstraction and decoration with its curved horns and upturned tail—this is especially the case in the use of the goat (or ibex) in the art of Ancient Anatolia. The depiction of goats in Mesopotamian art is often stereotypical, allowing one to assume that sketchbooks were used and artists trained in standard doctrines. In the artefacts of this group, the artists have attempted to depict goats in their most recognisable form (**Figures 5** and **6**). These include full profile; walking, or standing with their horned heads shown from the side; or lying down. Mostly, single animals are shown. Where goats are not shown entirely, they are suggested by parts of their body, such as horns in the goat-head

made available for public viewing via the Internet were also examined.

**10**

**Figure 5.**

*A baked clay pot, sporting a goat, from Umma which is dated to the Amorite dynasty of the nineteenth– eighteenth century B.C.E. (housed at the Louvre, Paris: [17]).*

### **Figure 7.**

*(a) Burnished pottery rhyton in the form of a goat's head from Iran (Elam) that is dated to 1000 B.C.E. (b and c) Earthenware goat rhyton dated to between 1000 and 2000 B.C.E. (All housed at the Sankokan University, Japan).*

Although the objects and images shown here have been placed in the category of 'abstraction and decorative composition' because they are particularly striking, some inferences regarding their symbolism can be made. Firstly, these objects may have

served as votive objects, as apotropaic figurines or as libation vessels (as part of a ritual in which characteristics of the animal depicted are expected to be imbibed by the drinker). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in both objects of **Figures 5** and **6**, the goat is shown with its right leg foremost. As Green [21] suggests in a paper dealing with apotropaic figurines (that lead with the left foot), this may be the beginnings of the custom of entering a holy place with the right foot first.

### *4.2.2 Group B: goats as players in specific rituals of human society*

Generally, ancient Mesopotamian gods were human in form. But both demonic and virtuous creatures were often depicted as animal-human hybrids. Specific animals were associated with certain gods and often became their symbols [9]. Thus, the dog was associated with Gula, the god of healing; the lion-snake-eagle with Marduk and the goat-fish with Ea (or Enki) [9]. Hatziminaglou and Boyazoglu [22], however, state that goats were sacred to Marduk and is often pictured accompanied by a goat (unfortunately, they do not reference this statement and are perhaps confusing images of Ea with Marduk).

Goats were an important element of divining the future [9, 23]: firstly, through unsolicited omens or observations (as from the omen list 'If a City is Situated on an Elevation' where both domesticated and wild animals were used) and secondly, through solicited omens through extispicy (reading of entrails) or merely a ritual involving an animal that did not necessarily involve its slaughter.

Where a god had an associated animal, as is the case, for example, with Ea or Enki, worshippers could bring tribute to a god either by the live goat itself or in the form of their animal statue (these votive objects could be clay, gold, bronze and/ or sliver), or in the form of a figure bringing the goat tribute. Images and figurines depicting this practice (shown in **Figure 8**) are referred to by modern scholars as 'goat bearers' (British Museum). It is interesting to note the abundance of the 'goat bearer' imagery over several cultures (Sumerian, Anatolian, Assyrian and Elamite) and over a long expanse of time. Further examples can be found in the work of Marchesi and Marchetti [24], which shows more than five examples from several Early Dynastic Mesopotamian sites.

Comparison of these images reveals that all the goat bearers have goatees or beards and all but one (from Zincirli carrying the goat on his neck) bear the goats in his arms. This may be important since, as Breniquet [18] mentions, very often the animal used to represent the god in visual material or in association with him shares the facial features or appearance (physiognomy) and behaviour of the god. The placement of the animal with the god renders the reading unequivocal and is part of the essence of the god.

According to Heinsohn [25], tribute was not so much to the god but to the priests themselves who managed the temple complex, as thanks for the role played by the priest in the act of sacrifice (it could be dangerous), as well as for absorbing the guilt for the killing itself (an act created to calm an emotionally traumatised community—initially following a cataclysmic event). It seems that ritual sacrifice was abandoned when further cataclysmic events no longer occurred and thus sacrifice (used to placate an anxious community) was no longer necessary. At this point, votive objects may have replaced tributes of live animals.

Although modern scholars refer to these images as 'goat bearers' (British Museum; [16]), it is not clear from, nor mentioned in, the literature whether these statues represent worshippers, priests or the god Ea (Enki) himself. Where the goat bearers form part of a scene where other tribute is being brought, it seems clear that the goat bearer is indeed a worshipper or tribute-payer; however, where the images are solitary, the identity of the bearer is ambiguous.

**13**

**Figure 8.**

*in the British Museum).*

and to redistribute to the community.

*Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale…*

Whole herds of animals were kept for their gods by their temples and branded with their marks [9, 23]. One can assume that when live animals were replaced by votive objects as tributes, then, these same herds would not have been used as sacrificial animals, but as a means to support the attendants of the temple complex

*(a) Plaque from Nippur, temple of In'anak (early dynastic I (3000–2330 B.C.E.)) [27]. (b) A worshipper carrying kids from Susa, middle Elamite, thirteenth century B.C.E. (housed in the Louvre, Paris: [17]) (c) from the citadel gate of Zincirli 900–800 B.C.E. ([26]: Plate XV) (d) apotropaic protective spirit guarding entrance to private chambers, from Nimrud (ancient Kalhu), northern Iraq, neo-Assyrian, 883–859 BC. His curled moustache, long hair and beard are typical of figures of this date. Carrying goat and ear of corn (housed* 

Animals were also used as the recipients of evil transferred from a human host,

what we know today as the 'scapegoat' ritual [23]. This 'transferral' of the evil (whether bad luck or an illness) could be achieved through the patient handling the animal, by the performance of a ritual and then letting the animal go (into a wasteland or a river), by the performance of a ritual and then slaughtering the animal and burying it (or discarding its remains in a river or wasteland, or by splitting the animal in half and passing between the two halves) or by the patient spitting on

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531*

*Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531*

### **Figure 8.**

*Goats (Capra) - From Ancient to Modern*

confusing images of Ea with Marduk).

Early Dynastic Mesopotamian sites.

the custom of entering a holy place with the right foot first.

*4.2.2 Group B: goats as players in specific rituals of human society*

involving an animal that did not necessarily involve its slaughter.

votive objects may have replaced tributes of live animals.

are solitary, the identity of the bearer is ambiguous.

served as votive objects, as apotropaic figurines or as libation vessels (as part of a ritual in which characteristics of the animal depicted are expected to be imbibed by the drinker). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in both objects of **Figures 5** and **6**, the goat is shown with its right leg foremost. As Green [21] suggests in a paper dealing with apotropaic figurines (that lead with the left foot), this may be the beginnings of

Generally, ancient Mesopotamian gods were human in form. But both demonic and virtuous creatures were often depicted as animal-human hybrids. Specific animals were associated with certain gods and often became their symbols [9]. Thus, the dog was associated with Gula, the god of healing; the lion-snake-eagle with Marduk and the goat-fish with Ea (or Enki) [9]. Hatziminaglou and Boyazoglu [22], however, state that goats were sacred to Marduk and is often pictured accompanied by a goat (unfortunately, they do not reference this statement and are perhaps

Goats were an important element of divining the future [9, 23]: firstly, through unsolicited omens or observations (as from the omen list 'If a City is Situated on an Elevation' where both domesticated and wild animals were used) and secondly, through solicited omens through extispicy (reading of entrails) or merely a ritual

Where a god had an associated animal, as is the case, for example, with Ea or Enki, worshippers could bring tribute to a god either by the live goat itself or in the form of their animal statue (these votive objects could be clay, gold, bronze and/ or sliver), or in the form of a figure bringing the goat tribute. Images and figurines depicting this practice (shown in **Figure 8**) are referred to by modern scholars as 'goat bearers' (British Museum). It is interesting to note the abundance of the 'goat bearer' imagery over several cultures (Sumerian, Anatolian, Assyrian and Elamite) and over a long expanse of time. Further examples can be found in the work of Marchesi and Marchetti [24], which shows more than five examples from several

Comparison of these images reveals that all the goat bearers have goatees or beards and all but one (from Zincirli carrying the goat on his neck) bear the goats in his arms. This may be important since, as Breniquet [18] mentions, very often the animal used to represent the god in visual material or in association with him shares the facial features or appearance (physiognomy) and behaviour of the god. The placement of the animal with the god renders the reading unequivocal and is part of the essence of the god.

According to Heinsohn [25], tribute was not so much to the god but to the priests themselves who managed the temple complex, as thanks for the role played by the priest in the act of sacrifice (it could be dangerous), as well as for absorbing the guilt for the killing itself (an act created to calm an emotionally traumatised community—initially following a cataclysmic event). It seems that ritual sacrifice was abandoned when further cataclysmic events no longer occurred and thus sacrifice (used to placate an anxious community) was no longer necessary. At this point,

Although modern scholars refer to these images as 'goat bearers' (British Museum; [16]), it is not clear from, nor mentioned in, the literature whether these statues represent worshippers, priests or the god Ea (Enki) himself. Where the goat bearers form part of a scene where other tribute is being brought, it seems clear that the goat bearer is indeed a worshipper or tribute-payer; however, where the images

**12**

*(a) Plaque from Nippur, temple of In'anak (early dynastic I (3000–2330 B.C.E.)) [27]. (b) A worshipper carrying kids from Susa, middle Elamite, thirteenth century B.C.E. (housed in the Louvre, Paris: [17]) (c) from the citadel gate of Zincirli 900–800 B.C.E. ([26]: Plate XV) (d) apotropaic protective spirit guarding entrance to private chambers, from Nimrud (ancient Kalhu), northern Iraq, neo-Assyrian, 883–859 BC. His curled moustache, long hair and beard are typical of figures of this date. Carrying goat and ear of corn (housed in the British Museum).*

Whole herds of animals were kept for their gods by their temples and branded with their marks [9, 23]. One can assume that when live animals were replaced by votive objects as tributes, then, these same herds would not have been used as sacrificial animals, but as a means to support the attendants of the temple complex and to redistribute to the community.

Animals were also used as the recipients of evil transferred from a human host, what we know today as the 'scapegoat' ritual [23]. This 'transferral' of the evil (whether bad luck or an illness) could be achieved through the patient handling the animal, by the performance of a ritual and then letting the animal go (into a wasteland or a river), by the performance of a ritual and then slaughtering the animal and burying it (or discarding its remains in a river or wasteland, or by splitting the animal in half and passing between the two halves) or by the patient spitting on

it, or eating it, or being covered with it (its blood), or by merely having the animal in proximity to the affected person. The scapegoat ritual was often used by the military and sometimes by cities to remove the scourge of a plague [27].

Animal figurines could be used for scapegoat rituals or as apotropaic figurines that were buried under the floors of domestic dwellings, barracks or temples to ward off evil [21]. Elaborate rituals describing an array of figurines to use (including the goat-fish), and the numbers of figurines that are required, have been documented [21].
